A Kremlin spokesperson said Russian President Vladimir Putin has been open to talks over Ukraine since the war began. Meanwhile, America’s top diplomat claimed there has been "no evidence" Moscow wishes to engage in diplomacy.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday that Putin appeared to be "much softer and more open to negotiations." Ankara has been one of the few NATO members to try to retain some ties with Moscow. Erdogan led negotiations that nearly ended the war in Ukraine in its first months. In July, Turkey and the UN successfully mediated the grain export agreement between Kiev and Moscow.
Responding to the Turkish leader’s remarks, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. Peskov said “Putin, in fact, has been open to talks from the very beginning. The president has repeatedly said so himself.” Moscow attempted to initiate talks with NATO prior to Russia invading Ukraine, he added.
Peskov pointed out the Kremlin was agreeable to a document produced by representatives from Kiev and Moscow. The Russian news agency TASS, quoted Peskov saying "Putin was open to talks when the text of the document between Russian and Ukrainian negotiators was actually agreed upon. So here, in this respect, nothing has changed."
In March, Ankara hosted talks with negotiators from both Moscow and Kiev. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and former US official Fiona Hill have separately confirmed that the broad outlines of a deal was reached. Several sources have reported that then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson traveled to Kiev and told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky not to pursue the agreement.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken argues that Russia is to blame for the lack of progress in negotiations. “We have seen no evidence of that in this moment. On the contrary, we see Russia doubling and tripling down on its aggression,” America’s top diplomat said at a press conference with his French counterpart.
Peskov added that current diplomacy is being stifled by a new statute signed by Zelensky. "The Ukrainian side has enshrined not continuing talks with Russia. That is, the Ukrainian law now prohibits any negotiations,” the Kremlin spokesperson said. On October 4, Zelensky signed a decree that barred talks with Putin’s government. "We are ready for a dialogue with Russia, but with another president of Russia," the Ukrainian leader said.
Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com, news editor of the Libertarian Institute, and co-host of Conflicts of Interest.
Nothing says “Hey let’ talk” like an invading hoard. I do believe sustained defeat on the battlefield will make one more chatty. So signs of progress
That “invading horde” was willing to talk from the beginning Tony.
The “invading hoard” was going to be a NATO-trained Ukraine. Russia warned again and again. The Neocons dismissed those warnings. Russia thus provoked, warnings ignored, acted. “Whoops!” won’t cut it. Hell has arrived.
Now Ukraine has become a Russian artillery-and-stand-off-weapons kill-zone (with more to come, much more), Europe an impoverished slave state condemned to freeze in the coming winter, and the US a looted and humiliated Neocon tyranny turned into a real-world “Hunger Games”.
Personally, I suspect that the hundreds-of-millions so immiserated will soon “sniff out” their tormenters and dish them some “payback”. Reality’s a bitch.
YMMV.
Speaking of reality, you should try it sometime.
“Russia doubling and tripling down on its aggression ” – a couple of weeks ago they talked about victorious Ukrainian army offensive and approaching defeat of Russia. Since that time, Russia started no counteroffensive. At the moment, Russian army is preparing for the defense of Kherson and evacuating the civilians from the right bank of Dnepr across the river in safer places.
The fact that Putin is ready for the negotiations doesn’t mean he is ready for fixing the frontline and stop military activity. Russian army is preparing for a big counteroffensive. Hardly they would agree in Kremlin to postpone it and give NATO chance to build up the military forces in Ukraine.
One can only sadly repeat the same things. If not for the “empire”, this conflict would have lasted only one week.
The EMPIRE, you mean the monster hegemon USA? I could not agree more.
More BS from criminal NEOCONs.
The US sponsored the Ukrainian coup in 2014 and evil criminals like Victoria Nuland along with her husband Robert Kegan and his brother Fredrick Kegan managed it!
Real warmongers among us!
yes, it is stunning how baldly and persistently they lie, … and mainly, how consequentially; how cold-blooded they kill from their safe luxurious lairs thousands of miles from the horror they sew. Hard to believe we share the same species.
When the evolution of the humankind got to a higher level, just a bit above the other primates, God gave us the freedom to choose between the good and the evil, and here we are.
Sullivan, Blinken & Co. are disciples of Leo Strauss and practitioners of the “noble lie”, so their official justifications are only cover. But when I wake at night I try to puzzle out the possible real meaning of all this. It is certainly Power (global hegemony), but for what? Do they believe only thus can the species be saved from the impending ecocide? Is it the white race & European Civilization again? …??
They are a war criminal syndicate, inclusive the congress. How can a democratic parliament not have any real dissenters in this? The nation has a f****d up economy and a disastrous foreign policy, we are close to going over the nuclear red line and they all support a f***ed up ad ministration with a demented, senile president, a criminal neocon State Department with failed people like Nuland and the Kagan clan, and all the idiots next to Scum like Blinken. There is no reasonable opposition party, they are collectively insane like the democrats, how can democracy be such a failure, how is this possible? And the same is true of all NATO member states. The UK, Germany, France, nothing but scumbags at the top.
Putin is more trustworthy than anyone of them. He is a real statesman and the Russian people know it. He has a great S.o.S Lavrov, we have scum like Blinken and the Germans have idiotic Baerbock and Scholz and best not even mention v.d.Leyen,
https://www.indianpunchline.com/russias-homage-to-nord-stream-pipelines/
Russia’s Homage to Nord Stream Pipelines.
The fact that Russia is cut out, Scholz says they know who did it but refuses to tell members of parliament speaks for itself. We do know the explosion happened in NATO member waters and NATO navy was near the pipe. The whole world knows that the USA did it or they would show evidence of who did it.
What is it they are hiding?
I think that the NATO MEMBERS took part in the blow up and the investigation is nothing but a cover up. I know that is unbelievable, but to me it is plausible, why else would they investigate and refuse to show the results of the investigation. When Biden next to Sholz told the journalist ‘WE KNOW HOW TO DO IT” Scholz was silent, he may have known what would happen. Another Tonkin Gulf episode.
I know, I look crazy, the world is crazy, maybe I am a victim of gaslighting.
German government, the same as Ukrainian one, is working for American oligarchy.
I agree with you, the Greens are proof, Germany is not a sovereign nation there are some 30K US troops stationed in Germany and the US would use them against the German people with live ammunition too.
That is true, Germany is under American military occupation. However, Germans, in their majority, are pro-American and anti-Russian. I think, they really believe Americans are protecting them from Russia. Besides, they are always sympathizing with those nations who in time of WWII were together with Germany (West Ukrainians, Croatians etc.).
That is the result of decades of indoctrination, to be critical of American policy was a no, no and elections where influenced by the USA. The Social Democrats were the majority party after the war, but the Christian Democrats won the election, right of center but still with some socialistic influence. The anti Russia is also indoctrination, Anglo Saxons always opposed German and Russian cooperation for the same reason they do it now. Katharine the Great was a German princess, but Queen Victoria maybe she was a cousin of Wilhelm, was part German and her husband was a German prince. Socialism was born in Germany and German and Russian culture have much in common too. The Russian people I know were and are all wonderful people.
I did get a little off the reservation, forgive me.
I don’t agree that the socialism was born in Germany. Maybe you mean Marxism? In Russia the socialist revolutionary movement started from the union of different organizations called Land and Freedom. Those organizations were clandestine and united by one idea – return the land to the peasants. Starting from the middle 17 century, after the reform of Church, Romanov dynasty begun the attack against the monasteries. The last big confiscation and privatization of the monastery lands happened in time of Ekaterina II. Monastery lands were privatized together with the peasants. Peasant Christian communities became serfs. They got back their freedom about 1860, but their land was never returned to them. It remained the property of the landlords (Romanov’s aristocracy). This conflict never was solved. In the end of 1917 Socialst Revolutionary party won the election to Constitutional Assembley. Then happened Bolshevik coup. The socialsim was highjacked by Bolsheviks.
Marxism, communism, socialism, to me it is like the catholic religion, it was controlled and united until the Reformation, it broke apart and the parts broke again, the Catholics and Protestants adopted to different cultures.
I think that that is what happened to the original Marxism. China and Russia and Europeans tailored Marxism to their needs. Evolution I think.
The idea of equality started from Jesus Christ. Christian communities always were about equality. As Christianity extended throughout World, Christian idea, one way or other, worked everywhere.
True, that is why humanism is really basically Christian.
Communism is more Christian than capitalism is. Marxism, Communism was aimed to humanize industrialized societies. I think to a large part it succeeded.
Lenin’s definition of communism is different from what they call communism in The West. Communism, according to the teaching, is the society of the future where there no state. It is society of the abundance where everyone works as he wishes and have as much as he wishes. In other words: Marxism-Leninism is a cheating. So, according to Marxism-Leninism, the goal of the communist party is to build the communism. To achieve this, communist party needs absolute totalitarian power. First, they need to destroy everything what stand in the way. Thus, any crime is justified. Actually, both, according to their theory and their practice, the first stage is the terrorist state where the massive extermination of people is not only allowed, but absolutely necessary. They call it Dictatorship of Proletariat.
Has it anything to do with the humanism?
By the way, according to Lenin, the socialist revolution (Bolshevik revolution) couldn’t be accomplished in one country; it must be World Revolution. Bolsheviks never planned to stop the war until they got the power over the planet.
Nothing you said is true and Marxism isn’t cheating.
Capitalism supporters tend to be very clownish and don’t really understand marxism, communism, or socialism.
You are demonstrating your ignorance. There is a difference between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism. Carl Marx created no party. Lenin did. The structure of Bolshevik party in its essence was a totalitarian religious sect. Bolsheviks denied the democracy. While in opposition, Bolsheviks acted as political mafia. When they got to the power, they established a terrorist regime.
I am not familiar with Lenin’s definition of communism. In Germany Marxism had followers with different interpretations of the philosophy. All had one thing in common namely to improve the lives of factory workers, poor working people. How to improve their lives and the best way to make it possible, that was the big question. I think that Social Democracies accomplished a good deal in industrialized nations. It is a complex subject for sure. The high standard of living in W. European nations was made possible with a social market economy. Young people take it for granted and don’t know what life was like before the Socialists, Communists, and Labor Unions fought and died for better living conditions .
According to Marx, the industrial proletariat would take the political power because it is more numerous than the capitalists. Marx didn’t deny the democracy. In his time, there were no democracy. UK parliament was composed of the capitalists and their representatives. The other countries were no more democratic than UK (may be only USA). The industrial proletariat hypothetically could take the power through the democratic elections.
Bolsheviks, while in opposition, also supported the democracy (it was the cheating). Bolshevik party, before they got the power, was called RSDRP(b) – Russian Socialist Democratic Labour Party (Labour in Russian language Rabochaya), (b) meant Bolshevik. Maybe they could if in Russia the industrial proletariat was the majority, but Russia was mostly peasant country. Peasant supported Socialist Revolutionary party. SR was a pro-democratic party. They had no plans for creating a totalitarian state. They even planned to give some compensation to the landowners for the confiscated in favor of the peasant communities land. Bolshevik coup was against the socialists and against the democracy.
You do know Russian history, I know a little, Russia is a part of Europe, I grew up in the other part of Europe.
If we place Olaf Scholz in Liz Truss’ position as a former prime minister-to-be, imagine the value of keeping one’s mouth shut and going quietly into that good night with a respectable yearly pension of £118,000.
“I know, I look crazy, …”
No my friend, you look — and are — completely sane. As are all the rest of us. Yes, you are far from alone. As you say, “The whole world knows that the USA did it…”
***It’s the media*** who say, and will never, ever, no matter how ridiculous they look, cease to say, “We simply don’t know who did it, but Russia is the prime suspect.”
Hahahahahahaha!!! No one is that stupid.
“No one is that stupid” – I have read many comments on this issue under a DW video (English service). No one accused US of sabotaging Nord Stream. Maybe some comments are deleted. The fact is: everyone avoided to accuse Americans of the sabotage, and no one asked the question: why this one pipeline of Nord Stream which wasn’t damaged, stay idle? Why German government refuses to use it despite the catastrophic shortage of the gas?
DW is a government paid propaganda channel. All US/NATO member nations have controlled MSM and report the same news based on the governments narrative. In Germany they don’t dare to even mention the name USA in any form when they report about NS
1&2 not even the three letters will be mentioned.
I am not sure how trustworthy are the independent German experts, but some of them say: everyone in Germany knows who sabotaged Nord Stream and that is US. Still, I don’t think all those commenting in DW are the bots. It is a very strange situation.
Dissenters don’t get invited by DW just as they do not get invited on state side networks, occasionally they permit a mild difference of opinion, a token to pretend to have objective news. It is a very sophisticated propaganda methods. They may have one little voice of dissent and three loud drums to drown out the little voice. Goebbels did not come close to the quality of propaganda they use.
People know that Russia sabotaged the pipelines is just not plausible, the solution is obfuscation, investigate but keep the results secret without proving a plausible reason why. And no journalist in MSM questions that.
Deliberate omission are LIES.
Free lance journalists have to establish their credentials too, we have old established experienced journalist like John Pilger, Patrick Lawrence, and other people reporting in the internet, Grayzon and CN and others are reliable sources. Europeans have their own too and many Europeans speak English and access them and link readers to them.
I don’t mean DW experts and journalists. I mean the public comments under DW videos. The same as comments here where every kind of people are commenting. For example, the comments under BBC videos are more pluralistic, though they are also in majority pro-NATO. Are people really so brainwashed? Or, perhaps, it is a manipulation, the bot team is working to produce the impression that Germans are loyal to US almost unanimously.
I recall that back in Dec. 2021 Putin offered to negotiate with Kiev and Biden’s State Department took weeks and weeks to respond. The willingness of the Russians, Putin , to negotiate is well documented, just as the promise not to expand NATO is well documented.
They want Regime Change not a negotiated settlement. Biden said it a long time ago, Putin must go. BIDEN said it, there is no misunderstanding possible.
It is Biden’s war, he wants the Russian resources to control worldwide US INTERESTS. The Ukrainians already are toast, Europeans will be next if it goes after Biden and all the war profiteers, American and others.
If the promise not to expand NATO is well documented then please tell us in which treaty can we find it?
The NOT ONE INCH NATO expansion was a word of honor of honor and is well documented.
From the National Security Archives
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
Americans break written treaties just as well, their word of honor is meaningless. But even Mafia people honor their words of promise.
Putin had to learn that lesson again. Gorbachev was an honorable man he believed Bush, Baker, Kohl, Genscher and others. Only the Americans broke their word, not Bush and Baker, but Clinton did it.
Henry Kissinger said, to be a friend of the US is fatal, as NATO allies are finding out.
SO it is actually not at all documented but just what the Russians thought they were promised – had this been a point of very high importance they should have locked it down in an actual treaty and not relied upon what they understood to be a ‘promise’.
And BTW NATO did not expand against the desire of the new member states, they were the ones who very much desired to become members – so grew rather than expanded – unlike Russia which is trying to expand very much against the will even of most of the Russians living in Ukraine.
The USA is in the process to destroy the EU and NATO. But the neocons are stupid, they don’t understand they are committing suicide by doing it. They are brainless.
That is not how we see it – we see it as NATO allowing the EU countries to do what they wanted to do even without NATO.
If we do not stand up to Russia in this conflict the consequence will be as we see it be a sustained long period of SMO’s all over the world where other nations as well as Russia, take ‘back’ territory that they believe belong to them – the cost of that will dwarf the costs of standing up to Putin now.
If in doubt see this expressed by the Kenyan Ambassador to the UN about the Ukrainian conflict:
A nice speech, that is it. The UN has lost credibility, the man must have received a letter from Joe telling him what to say if not there will be consequences for little poor Kenya. So he does as told for the sake of Kenya.
BTW he could have included the Syrian Golan Heights which Israel annexed, there was no referendum as far as I know.
When most of the world disagrees with you rather than check if you are right double down on what you believe in.
Oh and btw Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights while an absolute disgrace was provoked by repeated attacks by Syria on Israel – so not remotely the same, the correct problem to mention is Israel’s de-facto annexation of large parts of Palestine – a thing which has been protested against repeatedly.
Golan Hights is the place of the water supply for Israel. That is the reason why Israel will never agree to give it up.
“most of the world disagrees” – first of all, to have an independent opinion about anything, one needs to know about the real situation. You can’t learn it from the corporate mass media.
The population of those countries who refused to condemn Russia for the reunification with four Russian regions of former Ukraine is more than half of the humankind.
If we had a democracy in the world, US, together with the rest of NATO, should be recognized as minority. In such a case, they have the right to defend only their own rights of the minority and not pretend upon the full spectrum dominance over the world.
Very likely true.
Are you claiming that Russia has not annexed Ukrainian Oblasts – otherwise I do not think you will find that most of the world disagrees with you as the point being made is that using force to redraw borders is going to lead to conflicts all over the world and most of us do not think that a good thing.
4 countries have recognized the annexation of the ‘new’ territories!
If we had democracy in the world Russia would not have invaded Ukraine.
This sentence is hard to understand – the Russians are even by their own admission not protecting the Russian minorities in Ukraine, as even they have realized that the Russians in Ukraine are also fighting against Putin’s invasion.
China, India and many others abstained (as I said: refused to condemn). They don’t participate in the economic war against Russia.
Russia recognized the independence of DNR and LNR and made an agreement with them for the mutual help. It was absolutely legal. The invasion of Russian forces into Ukraine was done according to those agreements which obliged Russia to help Donbass republics to protect their territory. At the moment, a part of Donetsk Republic is still under Ukrainian occupation.
Sure – refusing to condemn is a far cry from supporting and taking economic advantage of Russia which is what India and China are doing – just about proves this. As for them not participating – are you claiming that they deliver goods on the sanctions list to Russia? Just asking because I do not know that there are sanctions on buying most of what India and China are buying from Russia (even EU countries are buying Russian oil and gas).
Legal in Russia not in the eyes of the international community – which has not recognized the independence of DNR or LNR.
Again for it to be anything other than the kind of war of territorial conquest that the Kenyan Ambassador to the UN spoke out against the territories had to be recognized by more countries in the UN. They were not and now they are not even by Russia – they have dropped the pretense of recognizing them as independent and simply annexed them.
Asian International community refused to condemn Russia. For Russia, as for EuroAsian country, it is much more important than the condemnation of NATO who killed millions of civilians in the last twenty years.
Again you are conflating refusing to join some other country’s agenda in condemning Russia with support. The fact remains that exceedingly few countries (only 4) have actually supported Russia by recognizing the referendums and Putin’s annexation of the Oblasts.
Oh and by the way where did NATO kill millions, make no mistake I am against NATO’s role in the Libyan civil conflict and I thought the involvement in Kosovo ill judged and finally the Afghan occupation was a war crime in the making, but in those conflicts millions of civilians were not killed, even going by the high estimates we do not get into the millions:
Afghanistan:
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan
So tops 243.000 if we say they were all civilians.
Libya:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_First_Libyan_Civil_War
So 25.000 civilians if we take the high estimate.
Kosovo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia#:~:text=The%20NATO%20bombing%20killed%20about,as%20barracks%20and%20military%20installations.
So 1528 if we call them all civilians.
That comes to not even 300.000 – where the vast majority was in the Afghan war and that figure was for all who dies not just the ones killed by NATO.
Had NATO not gone in the US would have done it alone and the hypothesis that fewer would have dies is not well supported.
What would you like to have happened, the continued shelling of Donbass, which over 8 years had led to the deaths of 14,000?
I would have liked the Russians to lift the burden of proof that they were not the ones to ferment that insurrection. Remember that the vast majority of those deaths were in the first 1½ year and that since then the Russians have killed far more Russian speakers in the Donbas, and had more of their Donbas fighters killed too – so more than doubled the cost in Russian speaking human lives – not a solution to the problem.
Israel controls the water, electricity, fishing, allows settlers to destroy crops. About the occupation, after the war of 1967 (which Israel started, and during which Israeli aircraft attacked the U.S.S. Liberty), Moshe Dayan told a journalist that if 10 years hence Israel was still an occupier, that would be the end of the Israel experiment.
I am utterly opposed to the Israeli occupation of Palestine – I actually have fundamental problem with the way Israel came to exist – to the Arabs it could quite understandably look like a new Crusade by proxy – not a good way to try to solve the issue that Europe had with being unable to have Jewish people living amongst them.
Israel has been attacking Syria for some time now. Also Lebanon. Also Iran.
In other words, you believe it is more preferable to surround Russia, aim missiles at it. What purpose does that serve? It serves no one. I do not know how old you are, but this mess has its origins in 1945. The Soviet Union had lost 25 million fighting NAZI Germany. That was not enough for some American generals, including General Patton. He and others wanted to attack the Soviet Union, while it was weak. It is documented. We came out of the war unscathed, filled with hubris, with men like the CEO of General Motors saying that the war economy was so good that it needed to be continued. General Patton was in a jeep that was struck by a truck, succumbing from his injuries. I believe it was intentional to stop the madness of another war. Against a war ally. Here we are, in 2022, in a proxy war with not the Soviet Union, but Russia. If we, the U.S. of A. had not been so enamored with being the one hegemon of the world, things would not be at this point.
NATO has not stationed nuclear missiles in any of the new eastern nations – for good purposes as it would make us less safe – Russia can post a nuclear armed sub less than 100 Km form New York, Washington, London, Paris or Brussels – so plenty of that going around – not that I would want nukes any closer to Russia anyway.
The Ukrainians and the Georgians disagree as do the Lithuanians because on account of their NATO membership the Duma retracting their recognition of Lithuania’s departure form the Soviet Union, did not cause widespread panic.
I did know this – because we were democracies no one with political ambitions could even contemplate that idea.
I know how he died – I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories – so although some may have killed him for that reason, I firmly believe that this was not necessary – no US or UK leader would have endorsed a war against the Soviets at that time.
Yes we would we are in this mess not because of NATO expansion – Putin himself said that he had no problems with Finland and Sweden joining, so clearly that was not the real reason.
I didn’t say that NATO expanded against the desire of the member states.
I simply pointed out that it became an alliance of military aggression rather than an alliance of military defense.
NATO has not been an alliance of military aggression to most of its members – not as they see it – to the average person in a NATO country the fact that NATO once attacked Serbia counts for practically nothing – all other missions that NATO has been involved in, NATO came in late i.e. NATO was not the instigator, so not the aggressor – other (usually NATO member) nations started these actions.
To an outside person that could well be seen as a distinction without a difference – but that is a matter of little importance to NATO’s survival – if NATO was seen as an aggressor in its member nations then it would be a different matter.
You should know, at no time did NATO have to defend a NATO MEMBER, NOT ONCE.
Every single military action in which NATO participated WERE ILLEGAL wars of aggression every time, no exception, all in American interests or colonial interests of France and UK.
Libya is one such incident, 3 nuclear NATO powers bombed Libya and destroyed the nation, it is now a failed state, Ghadaffy was killed in a most brutal way. US/NATO allies assassinate leaders and scientists, Russians don’t do that.
Yes that was the beauty of the NATO pact – mind you the Warsaw pact countries also never had to defend a member – but they certainly would have liked to have NATO defend them against the rest a couple of times (1956 and 1968).
Only one of them was initiated by NATO (Kosovo) – to be a NTAO action the members have to agree they very seldom do.
Yes – NATO came late to the ‘action’ so not a NATO action but an action where NATO was called upon to clean up the mess the others had created.
I would say you are trolling or YOU are the victim of gaslighting, it must be wrong if it does not fit your narrative. A word of Honor is a word of Honor in the eyes of honorable people. A question of character and ethics.
The states liked the EU and were coerced to become NATO members, the EU membership was reward for NATO expansion.
I happen to live in one of them – yes we were coerced but by the Soviets and the Russians are keeping us from leaving.
We had a referendum on whether to join an EU scheme for furthering our collaboration in Europe this year – we had said no to this in 1992 – this time around even the most anti NATO parties had conceded that there was simply no votes in keeping that stance.
So no I’m not trolling you, just living in a different reality?
The EU economical advantages were the bait, NATO is part of the give and take. What you know is what the officials want you to know, they don’t tell you the arm twisting or the money changing hands that was done behind closed doors. We do know about manipulated elections, happens in the best of families.
No NATO was and is more important to all of the former Soviet republics the advantage of joining EU is a distant second priority – I happen to have lived in Lithuania shortly after they broke away from the Soviet Union – EU membership was not the sweetener that made NATO membership acceptable.
“SO it is actually not at all documented but just what the Russians thought they were promised”
Lying to yourself is easy. There is only one person to convince, and that person has already decided on the lie he wants to believe.
But your gonna have no success whatever trying to get anyone here to join you and jam their head up your ass with you.
You might want to go where flag-draped stupid is an accepted style of “narrative”,
If you have any proof that there was treaty that promised that NATO would reject new members then you have evidence that I was not right – to prove that I was lying you would need to prove that I knew that there was such a treaty. As there is no such treaty all we have here is evidence that you fling about accusations without basis in fact.
Treaty, smeaty, gentlemen’s agreements are done all of the time. Written agreements, treaties, are broken all of the time. Integrity of the parties gives the agreements strength. The U.S., NATO, have shown no integrity, only moves more in line with prepping for war. It is stupid.
If that is so why is there a problem with NATO accepting new members pleading to be allowed to join the protective wall against Russian aggression?
Oh you mean like Russia did by invading Georgia and annexing Crimea (the last explicit violating a written treaty).
Either treaties matter and you have to have a gentlemen’s agreement at the very least witnessed or you are as unreliable as to make any such agreements null and void. If you believe that no treaty/agreement with NATO is worth the paper it is written on then we are not as such in great disagreement as I believe the same for any agreement written with Putin.
So according to our common belief this war unfortunately has to continue until NATO is dissolved or Putin replaced with someone less willing to sacrifice human life for goals his population is not backing with any zeal.
!!!
Treaties are only as good as the parties that agree to it. Witness our pulling out of the ABM Treaty, INF Treaty, JCPOA. All written, signed, ratified. All brushed aside by the U.S. of A., which will never agree to a multipolar world. That would mean giving up the idea of being the hegemon of the world.
Sure – treaties can be broken – so we should not make any with Russia I guess, if you say that they cannot trust us and we do not trust Putin then there seems to be little purpose even negotiating – is that the result you wanted?
Politicians don’t care about the honor because the people themselves forgot about honor. Politicians are lying to them shamelessly, and yet they are reelected again and again.
Gorbachev was a good for nothing demagogue.
Really, he made his mistakes but I give credit where credit is due. You can be critical but to call him a demagogue makes no sense to put it mildly. The US put Yeltsyn in power our boy, he opened the door to the Russian nations treasure for the west to rob the Russian nation. The oligarchs, west and east could not walk straight because of the gold chains and Rolexes they had to carry while the Russian people were starving.
Putin put an end to that, he put some oligarchs in jail, they now live in the US and hate Putin. He reduced the corruption substantially.
Putin is the savior of the Russian people and their country, with all his human faults, he is a great statesman. He lifted the nation up when it was on the ground while the Western nations kicked them down some more.
Putin is honest, he took no bribes, gave no bribes and never asked for bribes. He does serve his nation and you can say what you want, it is what it is.
I am saying this because demonizing Putin is used to justify the war crimes of the USA/NATO alliance.
Yeltsin was brought to the power by the circumstances. He wasn’t picked up by American oligarchs. Yeltsin became the president of Russia through democratic elections. He was very much popular in the late 1980th and enjoyed the support of the majority of the people. While he was struggling to topple Gorbachev, The West never supported him. Only after Gorbachev was kicked out and Yeltsin demonstrated his devotion to the western values (30 years ago those values were quite different from what we have now), Americans sent to him some advisers and gave him money. Yeltsin honestly believed in the free-market reforms and trusted American advisers. Only in 1998 he started suspect that something goes wrong. Particular in the spring 1999 after NATO aggression against Yugoslavia. The spring 1999 was the turning point. Putin was picked up and brought to the power by Yeltsin.
He was elected with the help of the Americans, Yeltsyn was an alcoholic and in the end he supported Putin. Putin was more or less picked by the officials, he did not fight to get the job. The people who picked him as the candidate were good people, they chose well and yes Yeltsyn supported him all the way. I give Yeltsyn credit too, he came through when it counted, and I think that he was used by the Western powers. I don’t think Yeltsyn was a bad person but he was not prepared for the political methods no more than was Gorbachev and even Putin. Putin learned the hard way, he reached out and was pushed back.
Americans played no role in promotion of Yeltsin to power. No one knew how he will act. In elections 1996 it was a different story; the oligarchs, who became super rich also with the help of American advisers, helped him to win. But it was a different situation than, for example, in smaller countries of East Europe. First of all, unlike, for example, in Poland, where Americans really helped a lot to improve the economic situation, in Russia the role of American advisers was exclusively negative. Their goal was to destroy the industry, education, medicine and everything else as much as possible. In the election 1996 the choice was between Yeltsin and communists. Few people wanted communists, and no one wanted the havoc. There were enough of havoc already. There was one quite popular general, who could be elected, but they bribed him, and he sided with Yeltsin.
You are right, Prof. Jeffrey Sachs who was one of the advisers would agree with you, he said suggestions he made which were accepted in Poland were not allowed to apply in Russia, he had not enough power to change that. German officials have said the same. Russia has oil and the goal was to destroy everything you say, now that you mention it, that is the intention for Germany, to destroy Germany and with it the EU and Russia.
Sometimes history does repeat itself.
You are right about Yeltsyn, but the Americans did not object to him, he was easy to handle, I don’t think he was corrupt, just not prepared for political hardball.
He was quite corrupt too and loved the power. His daughter is super rich and married a man from his team who is also super rich. It looks, by 1998 he realized that his presidency was a disaster and tried to improve the situation.
You are right, Yeltsyn trusted the Americans. They did take advantage of him. You said it.
Jeffrey Sachs would agree with you, he is one of the voices in the wilderness against the American policies concerning Ukraine.
Perhaps Yeltsin knew he had been played by the U.S. and chose Putin to succeed him because he knew that Putin was no fool.
When NATO attacked Yugoslavia, about that time, Yeltsin appointed Stepashin as prime minister. Probably, Yeltsin thought, Stepashin could replace him. Stepashin served in Internal Ministry in Soviet time, and his carrier was always connected with it. He is honest and efficient manager. In August, Chechen-Arab Wahhabi army attacked Dagestan. Stepashin said: Russia can’t keep North Caucasus. Obviously, they had some consultation in Kremlin. Then Yeltsin appointed Putin as prime minister. Putin believed he can cope with the situation. 5 months later Yeltsin resigned and Putin, as second man in state hierarchy, became president of Russia.
Yeltsin was a drunk,our malleable drunk.
“Well documented” and “in a treaty” are two entirely different things.
Here’s a good place to start.
Apart from actual “assurances,” there’s the practical results/affects.
Prior to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, a prima facie case could be made that NATO was a defensive alliance, there to protect western Europe from Soviet invasion.
Since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, NATO has doubled in size (when it should have declared “mission accomplished” and dissolved), and engaged exclusively in optional wars of aggression.
That kind of assumes that the members only feared the construct of the Soviet Union – that was and is very far from the case most of the eastern European states feared Russia and Putin has shown just how justified that fear was and is.
Russia supplied abundant cheap energy to Europe. That cheap energy was the foundation of European prosperity (but no more). Where was the fear?
Russia sought to join NATO but was rejected. Russia sought to integrate with Europe through trade, with cheap energy the foundation for that. Where was the fear in that? There wasn’t any.
The Neocons wouldn’t have it.
The Neocons were committed — The Wolfowitz Doctrine … Google it — to seeing Russia conquered and looted … destroyed.
Fear? You’ve got it turned around. It was Russia that had the US/NATO/Neocons to fear.
So here we are: Russia is compelled to defend itself from Neocon criminality. As always, someone else pays the price — in this case Ukraine, Europe, and the US are the blood-and-treasure victims, ***the result of the domination of “liberal democracies” by the Neocons***.
And just so there be no misunderstanding as to just exactly who the “Neocons” are:
The NEOCONS ARE ZIONIST CRIMINALS.
Very far from all of Europe bought gas in amounts to make it ‘the foundation of European prosperity’ and the gas was not sold at a so much lower than market price as to make it impossible to survive without it.
Not entirely true, but the result would have been the same had they done, for the very good reason that it was a defense alliance against non members but incapable of dealing with war between members Russia could not join.
Primarily Germany tried to integrate Russia through trade most of the rest were more apprehensive – if your position is that there were no fear of Russia attacking that it was all ‘The Neocons wouldn’t have it.’ doing it then I can only think that you have never stayed in a European country east of France through an election cycle.
The Neocons may have been committed, but to the extend they were concerned by Russia they had very much the support of the electorates – we had seen Putin start the second war in Chechnya, seen him start a conflict with Georgia and seen him annex Crimea and seen him ferment an insurrection in the Donbas. So no, it was not the neocons that drove the fear of Russia.
They might have feared NATO, I have seen very little evidence that the ordinary Russian did, but then since they never lived in a democracy what they thought is not important.
Defend itself by invading? Defend it self by violating treaties it had signed – not even the Russians believe that they are defending themselves in Ukraine – that is why so many fled and so few volunteered – you are based on the strength of the evidence the one who is just flat out wrong.
And an anti-Semite as-well!
The Americans weaponized energy including NLG not Russians. Russians honored all their business agreements spanning over decades. All the propaganda does not change that, Americans will break every agreement when it suits them. Biden did not even dial back the Trump roll- back of the illegal sanctions against Cuba which Obama/Biden had loosened a little.
Not even that little could the old senile Biden do. Same with Iran. Scorched earth wherever they go.
They will not rest until Ukraine and Europe will be utterly destroyed. The USA have become the global evil Pariah. War criminals are running the show.
The British are oppose to any kind of economic cooperation between Germany and Russia, going all the way back to the Westphalia Peace agreement 1648, at the end of the 30 year war.
That was the the Anglo-Saxon goal in both WW and it is the goal now.
They stopped honoring their gas obligations in 2022. The US has not failed to supply LNG to any of its European clients AFAIK.
I kind of prefer the US’s over Russia – sure they act very bad at times, but few of their erstwhile opponents (in Europe – cant speak to the rest) hate them with the same gust as those that have had the pleasure of getting to know the Russian.
Well the Iranians have rewarded that behavior – the US has not invaded (yet at least).
Europe will not be destroyed – and as long as the Ukrainians want to resist the coming of a genocide by the Russians, I’m ok with supporting them in that endeavor.
I think we can agree on that, and I for one am happy that we are allowed to have democracy as the consequence of this policy – are you against?
Stop hiding behind anti-Semitism, political groups have names, Zionists are politicians with political goals, just like other groups. Israelis are being judged like others, they have no special rights because they are Zionists.
I’m not hiding I only call out anti-Semitism when I see what looks much like it – if people like Jeff Davis ostentatiously a Jew himself want to say:
Then that said by any gentile would be clear evidence of anti-Semitism. Zionists are (Jews almost exclusively) and here Jeff Davies is claiming that Neocons are behind practically all the wars in Europe (the world!?) and that the Neocons are all Zionists i.e. Jews – is more evidence needed?
I’m not granting Israel any special rights they get to face the same criticism from me, but I do not entertain the idea that they or the neocons are behind all what the US has done nor that the neocons are all Zionists. So no being a Zionist does not grant you any favor with me, but accusing all neocons of being Zionists and behind all that ails the world does get you called out for anti-Semitism.
Neoconservatism is a political orientation, not an ethnic designation. There are Jewish neoconservatives and non-Jewish neoconservatives. And, frankly, not very many of either (they’re a small theoretical school of former Trotskyists that happen to have managed to get onto perches in academia, think tanks, and the US bureaucracy).
There are probably more non-Jewish Zionists than Jewish Zionists, including tens of millions of evangelical Christians in the US. Zionism is also a political orientation, not an ethnic designation.
Does the person you’re responding to in particular tend to incorrectly use “neocon” or “Zionist” as a substitute for “Jew” because he knows the latter will get him banned here? Yes. But only the latter WILL get him banned here.
Neoconservatism is a political orientation, not an ethnic designation. There are Jewish neoconservatives and non-Jewish neoconservatives. And, frankly, not very many of either (they’re a small theoretical school of former Trotskyists that happen to have managed to get onto perches in academia, think tanks, and the US bureaucracy).
There are probably more non-Jewish Zionists than Jewish Zionists, including tens of millions of evangelical Christians in the US. Zionism is also a political orientation, not an ethnic designation.
Does the person you’re responding to in particular tend to incorrectly use “neocon” or “Zionist” as a substitute for “Jew” because he knows the latter will get him banned here? Yes. But only the latter WILL get him banned here.
Hell, I’m part Palestinian and I’ve been accused of being a neocon. It’s pretty much just a slur they use for anybody who doesn’t agree with them.
Neoconservatism is a political orientation, not an ethnic designation. There are Jewish neoconservatives and non-Jewish neoconservatives. And, frankly, not very many of either (they’re a small theoretical school of former Trotskyists that happen to have managed to get onto perches in academia, think tanks, and the US bureaucracy).
There are probably more non-Jewish Zionists than Jewish Zionists, including tens of millions of evangelical Christians in the US. Zionism is also a political orientation, not an ethnic designation.
Does the person you’re responding to in particular tend to incorrectly use “neocon” or “Zionist” as a substitute for “Jew” because he knows the latter will get him banned here? Yes. But only the latter WILL get him banned here.
Zionists or not, neocons only believe in a unipolar world, where the U.S. sits at the top, by any means. Period.
It is puzzling that the neocon PNAC doctrine never gets mentioned that doctrine is their Guiding Light. Wolfowitz and other are gone but the KAGANS and their spouses are still there and are influential. Neocons and Zionists are the two sides of the coin.
That sounds about right Renate.
Thank you, Thomas.
But we know Michael64. We’ve met him under many other names many times before.
He takes a side and then twists reality to force it to support his side. He already knows that 2+2=7 and is impervious to factual reality.
Leave him be. He’s a waste of everyone’s time … including his own.
The Warsaw Pact came after NATO in response to NATO. The Soviets asked to join NATO and were rebuffed.
Correct. When the Soviet Union dissolved, their leaders wanted to become a member of the Western Alliance. Led by the U.S., there was a collective nyet.
A gentleman’s agreement. Done all the time. Written agreements are done all the time. The moral strength of the parties to uphold them is the key. The H.W. Bush administration upheld the agreement not to move one inch East. Clinton began the violation of the agreement. W. Bush withdrew the U.S. from the ABM Treaty. Trump withdrew the U.S. from the INF Treaty and the JCPOA. Biden? Well, Biden has horrible advisers and has quite a feeble mind. A dangerous combo.
You have this mostly correct.Putin is no.angel.Why.would he be.The US.has sabotaged.peace talks all.over.the Planet.for hundreds of years.The diplomats for the US have been.lying.forever Just ask the Native Americans and the Palestinians.It is difficult for an American to.deal.with the.evil.nature of the Empire.
shutupp usa and take your guns and bombs with ya, far far away.. Conniving, lying, distorting warmongering arm merchants of evil.
The MIC would not allow that. No siree. The vultures.
Petraeus said today that NATO may intervene even if Russia does not use nuclear weapons. Yep because they are winning so hard that NATO needs to intervene.
Ukraine is about to collapse, the Ukraine army is done, they are running out of merc’s and if NATO doesn’t intervene its over.
The Russians will be salivating at the chance to settle some scores. So remind me again just who’s trap was this when Moscow intervened in Ukraine? Its a war of attrition and NATO is not prepared for it.
Then it will be just the issue of the riots and civil unrest to sort. I am thinking that the global elites might need NATO troops at home to defend their gardens from the jungleites.
Breaking News:
Zelensky ignores talks with Putin and instead proposes a “Buy me a Washer Machine” program for all Russian soldiers willing to return home. Zelensky may even throw a Laptop and a Toilet in this package. Officials believe this program could end the War within days.